ITAT quashes reassessment notice under section 148 issued by wrong officer, rejects bogus purchase addition under section 68

ITAT Jodhpur quashed reassessment proceedings initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under section 148, ruling the notice was invalid as it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer who conducted original assessment. The reopening was based on incorrect information regarding purchase transactions, when assessee had actually made sales to the entity. The tribunal rejected 100% addition under section 68 for alleged bogus purchases, finding assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuine sales transactions including bills, stock registers, and cheque receipts. Addition was unsustainable as sales were already recorded and taxed. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality and validity of the reassessment order.
2. Legality and validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Legitimacy of sales transactions with M/s Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd.
4. Sustaining of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
5. Evaluation of evidence and legal position by the CIT(A).
6. Validity of the report by the Investigation wing.
7. Compliance with binding decisions of higher courts and tribunals.

Comprehensive Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Reassessment Order:

The reassessment order was challenged by the assessee on the grounds that it was based on incorrect information. The original information received suggested that the assessee had purchased goods from M/s Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd., which was incorrect as the assessee had actually sold goods to this entity. The Tribunal found that the reopening of the assessment was based on this incorrect information, rendering the reassessment invalid.

2. Legality and Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:

The notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), as required by the faceless assessment scheme. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings based on this invalid notice were quashed.

3. Legitimacy of Sales Transactions with M/s Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd.:

The assessee contended that the sales to M/s Sonu Monu Telecom Centre Pvt. Ltd. were genuine, supported by sale bills, stock register entries, and receipt of payment through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided overwhelming evidence of the sales, including the payment of applicable taxes. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any specific enquiry to dispute these transactions, thus supporting the assessee's claim of genuine sales.

4. Sustaining of Addition Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:

The addition of Rs. 85,69,197/- under Section 68 was challenged on the basis that the nature and source of the credit were established as sales of goods. The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was inappropriate as the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the nature of the credit through documentation and evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee had already accounted for the sales in its Profit & Loss Account and offered the resultant profit for taxation.

5. Evaluation of Evidence and Legal Position by the CIT(A):

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee in a judicious manner. The CIT(A) upheld the addition without considering the overwhelming evidence presented by the assessee, which demonstrated the legitimacy of the sales transactions.

6. Validity of the Report by the Investigation Wing:

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the report by the Investigation wing without any corroborative material or evidence supporting the report's conclusions. The Tribunal found that the report's findings were not substantiated by any concrete evidence against the assessee.

7. Compliance with Binding Decisions of Higher Courts and Tribunals:

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not adhere to the binding decisions of higher courts and tribunals, which required a more thorough evaluation of the evidence and legal position. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following judicial precedents and ensuring decisions are based on substantiated evidence.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the reassessment order and the notice issued under Section 148, and set aside the additions made under Section 68. The Tribunal's decision was based on the invalidity of the notice, incorrect information leading to reopening, and the failure of the revenue authorities to conduct specific enquiries or consider the evidence provided by the assessee.

---